Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Is it time for a blog post critiquing one of his academic papers? (Unlike other megahistory writers, he accepts peer review.) I've generally found reading your blog and his writings to be far more complimentary than opposed. http://peterturchin.com/PDF/HoardCens_PNAS.pdf …
I think the linked paper is actually a good one; I've cited it before. Crucially, it focuses on a data-set and keeps its conclusions limited to what that data might suggest, without getting too bold in its conclusions.
Though I think it matters a great deal that the PNAS paper on coin hoards exists within a fairly robust scholarly debate and doesn't claim to be the last word. For more on that debate, see L. De Ligt, Peasants, Citizens and Soldiers (2012)
I'm not finding any single paper that is central to his predictions other than the book Secular Cycles, and it mostly tests Middle Ages European data. Also, it makes clear that history is complicated in a way that does not come across in popular articles.
When he does put it in an academic paper, it mostly summarizes other papers rather than presenting the argument all at once. Annoying for my curiosity, but understandable given the scale of the data. http://peterturchin.com/PDF/Turchin_JPR2012.pdf …
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
